"Never take counsel from those who do not believe" ?

[bobhikes]

At the recent Mormon General con their president told members "Never take counsel from those who do not believe. Seek guidance from prophets, seers and revelators and from the whisperings of the Holy Ghost."

So...
don't listen to your doctor if he has a different faith than you.
don't listen to a police officer / fire fighter / emergency responder if they have different religious beliefs than you.
if a member of your family has a different belief, don't listen to them.
if a book/news article/journal was written by someone with a different belief, don't read it.

information control is part of the b.i.t.e. model.

For all the religious and non-religious people here, how much do you trust someone's secular education / career expertise as opposed to following the pope/bishop/church?

If your church tells you - no blood transfusions, and doc says your kid needs it?
If your church tells you to gather at their temple, and the weather guy has it mapped as a flood location - do you follow flood zone maps, or your local leader?
If your church tells you evolution isn't true... the world is only 6000 years old.... tells you god gave you this land... tells you abortion clinics are evil - do you blow it up?

Here's my bias - I did research and find an atheist therapist for kids abused by a Mormon leader. No way in hell was I going to subject them to religious rationalization and additional emotional manipulation by a religiously affiliated therapist whose bias was to protect the church and church leaders. Have to admit, there are some professionals I trust more than others. Data based decision on all as much as I can.

What's good for you is not necessarily good for others. If you are content with the life, you lead and not purposely ruining the lives of others then you should be allowed to live it. As for children they are unfortunately a product of their parents, we have no laws governing the raising of children, there are no classes required to have children, at some point the children need to decide for themselves whether they follow or oppose their parents teaching, more likely adapt a combination. If you want to guide the children of the world you need to get a consensus and make laws and schools for the raising of children. Personally, I doubt any plan can be successful and we need a variety in parenting, even bad parenting. As a person the best you can do is be there for a person in need and guide them to help if they want it. What I tend to see is most people ignore those in need making an excuse that they are too busy, or things are too complicated to help now. I myself am more often guilty of this always saying tomorrow I will do better.

 

[idea]

Then they need to grow up and live in the same workd as the rest of us.
And that's not whatvwas meant anyways. Churches like that need to be very insular or people won't believe. It's Christian supremacy and a dogmatic pursuit of purity. It's no different than my old church throwing away literature because the author was of another denomination. We know best, we have the truth, and it's so incredibly delicate that we have to keep you away from outside views because the truth just doesn't match the outside world.
It's why I call Christianity a cult.

"My church/country/team/food/music is the one and only true _______" vs. "My church/// is good, as are others"

There was a quote - Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man.

A mindset that enjoys their group/country/church without the need of comparing and putting others down - celebrate everyone - it is a happier way to live.

Secular welfare programs, education programs, infrastructure - the secular world works with everyone and is therefore so much better at everything.

 

[idea]

What's good for you is not necessarily good for others. If you are content with the life, you lead and not purposely ruining the lives of others then you should be allowed to live it. As for children they are unfortunately a product of their parents, we have no laws governing the raising of children, there are no classes required to have children, at some point the children need to decide for themselves whether they follow or oppose their parents teaching, more likely adapt a combination. If you want to guide the children of the world you need to get a consensus and make laws and schools for the raising of children. Personally, I doubt any plan can be successful and we need a variety in parenting, even bad parenting. As a person the best you can do is be there for a person in need and guide them to help if they want it. What I tend to see is most people ignore those in need making an excuse that they are too busy, or things are too complicated to help now. I myself am more often guilty of this always saying tomorrow I will do better.

Kids are difficult. Do you force JW's to allow their kids to get blood transfusions if they need it? Force Muslims to allow their daughters to go to school too? Force Mormons to report confessed - personal priesthood interview - conversations?

Yes, secular welfare takes care of order of magnitude more than religious welfare programs - I do not mind paying taxes, and have relied on secular sources of help too. The best support comes from by-all-the-people types of governments who listen to, and take votes from everyone. Not by the pope, not by the prophet, the apostle - but by the people - every voice heard, a compromise to try and help everyone from all backgrounds. Nothing perfect, but we can see the fruit of what types of organizations do the most good for the most people - secular wins.

 

[Quintessence]

Have you traveled to places where there is no choice in food? Just one kind of food? Works for a few days, but after awhile... diversity is the spice of life. It's a richer experience to explore and learn from everyone.

And holding to tradition is the foundation of life and living that keeps us all going in the day-to-day. It's a tried and true method that is used because it works for those who keep to it.

This isn't an either-or. It can be a both-and. One can both value diversity and value tradition.

In any case, what is true for you and I is not necessarily true for all other humans on this planet. This is important to remember. Just because you value novel experiences over keeping to traditions does not make it so (or appropriate) for all others.

 

[Quintessence]

Then they need to grow up and live in the same workd as the rest of us.

No, they don't - others have every right to keep to their own ways just as you do to yours. Them not being you doesn't mean they need to "grow up."

 

[Debater Slayer]

And even if they weren't, there's something to be said for working with those whose culture aligns with your own. Attempting to adopt ways from cultures wildly different from your own is often problematic - either because the foundational assumptions don't line up or things are taken out of context and then misapplied or misused relative to their original intent.

The problem with an instruction like "never take counsel from those who do not believe," when it is meant to apply to affairs beyond strictly religious ones, is that it usually doesn't stop at encouraging working with others whose culture aligns with one's own; it goes further and encourages exclusion of those whose worldviews are different. Replace "those who do not believe" with "Christians," "Jews," or "Muslims" and the immensely harmful prejudice should be clear.

One could prefer to work with those whose culture aligns with one's own without excluding others from participation in society and its various affairs. As someone who has experienced religious exclusion to the point of tangible threats to physical safety, I generally regard that kind of mindset as fundamentally pernicious when applied to affairs other than religious ones. It is one of the linchpins of segregation and marginalization, and I have seen it applied in many contexts where it has been used as a justification for treating religious minorities as second-class citizens and undesirable elements of society.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, they don't - others have every right to keep to their own ways just as you do to yours. Them not being you doesn't mean they need to "grow up."

I think people do need to reconsider their own values and beliefs if "their own ways" entail harming others and excluding them from society. Most of us don't excuse racial segregationists for wanting to "keep to their own ways" either. Some mindsets and beliefs are demonstrably abusive and lead to harmful results in the real world, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to point that out.

 

[Quintessence]

The problem with an instruction like "never take counsel from those who do not believe," when it is meant to apply to affairs beyond strictly religious ones, is that it usually doesn't stop at encouraging working with others whose culture aligns with one's own; it goes further and encourages exclusion of those whose worldviews are different. Replace "those who do not believe" with "Christians," "Jews," or "Muslims" and the immensely harmful prejudice should be clear.

One could prefer to work with those whose culture aligns with one's own without excluding others from participation in society and its various affairs. As someone who has experienced religious exclusion to the point of tangible threats to physical safety, I generally regard that kind of mindset as fundamentally pernicious when applied to affairs other than religious ones. It is one of the linchpins of segregation and marginalization, and I have seen it applied in many contexts where it has been used as a justification for treating religious minorities as second-class citizens and undesirable elements of society.

I think people do need to reconsider their own values and beliefs if "their own ways" entail harming others and excluding them from society. Most of us don't excuse racial segregationists for wanting to "keep to their own ways" either. Some mindsets and beliefs are demonstrably abusive and lead to harmful results in the real world, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to point that out.

Yes, I would hope these sorts of things go without saying. But it is worth saying them, so thanks for saying them.

What I had in mind when writing that earlier response were very different things from what you talk about here.

As a religious minority, I've had issues come up that relate to my religious affiliation. Counselors in this country are either very secular or almost certainly not going to be any flavor of Pagan - they won't be able to understand the specific issues I sometimes have because it isn't their culture. That's not to say their guidance would be useless, but it would be significantly more beneficial to be able to talk to someone of "my own kind" about certain things. I've seen something similar come up with my students who are BIPOC, actually - they want a counselor who is also BIPOC, not some white person who hasn't been where they've been. I get it. I see the need for keeping to one's own sometimes.

The other thing I was thinking about was cultural appropriation, eclecticism, and syncretism. It's a much discussed topic in Pagan circles especially, as reconstructionist paths are inherently going to run into this issue. As a Druid - especially as an OBODie - I'm way less persnickety about following the flow of Awen than many, but I'm still aware of the problems that can happen when one takes a system from one culture and plunks it into one's own way of life without being thoughtful about it. It can cheapen and commodify what would otherwise be deep religious practices, outright misunderstand their original intent, that sort of thing. Again, another place I see the value in keeping to one's own and setting boundaries.

 

[Father Heathen]

And even if they weren't, there's something to be said for working with those whose culture aligns with your own. Attempting to adopt ways from cultures wildly different from your own is often problematic - either because the foundational assumptions don't line up or things are taken out of context and then misapplied or misused relative to their original intent.

Sure, but there is also the issue of people being purposely sheltered and isolated for the sake of manipulation and control. Insularity also hinders people's ability to understand and interact with the outside world.

 

[Quintessence]

Sure, but there is also the issue of people being purposely sheltered and isolated for the sake of manipulation and control. Insularity also hinders people's ability to understand and interact with the outside world.

Do you believe this form of human diversity should be gotten rid of, then? That cultures that want to be isolationist shouldn't exist? Or that control is a bad thing (and when or in what ways)?

I guess I just am okay with these groups existing - I view them as part of human diversity. I don't want to get rid of them. Not everyone thinks globalization and multiculturalism is the best thing since sliced bread. That's okay. I mean, part of the conservative fear reaction is because they believe liberals like me want to get rid of them or their lifeways - force them to be multicultural or just like me. I don't. Maybe you do?

 

[PureX]

I think its confusion of loyalty over truth.

Patriotism vs nationalism
Love vs. controlling jealous - wants to keep spouse isolated
Healthy, unhealthy group dynamics.

Control is always at the heart of the dysfunction. I agree. The greater the fear (lack of faith in divine benevolence), the greater the desire to take and hold control. And it's as true of the victims as the victimizers. They just choose a different experience of control.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, they don't - others have every right to keep to their own ways just as you do to yours. Them not being you doesn't mean they need to "grow up."

Yes, it does. If your views can't survive being exposed to other views then your views are probably not worth holding on to, and when create am insulated world to shelter your.views and keep them pure you need go grow up. That sort of thinking does one any good and is destructive.
It's why we have to fight over covid, still fight over evolution, fight over global warming and so many other things because of the assumption we must respect the views of others and they all have am equal right to peacefully exist in a society of larger ideas.
It's also why Wisconsin v Yoder has ruined lives and made things much harder for the individuals because we defer to religious rights as we place parents on a pedestal as if though its true they actually always kniw whats best for their kids.
Amd then we have the mountains of infirm, disabled and dead kids and adults because their religius parents insisted their rights be respected, even at the expense of the rights and well being of the child.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. Or do you mean to tell me you plan to force your opinion onto all other humans? How do you plan to do that, exactly?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, it doesn't. Or do you mean to tell me you plan to force your opinion onto all other humans? How do you plan to do that, exactly?

If it were up to me it would be a criminal offense to voluntarily be unvaccinated. Kids would have more say so over the direction of their life and healthcare decisions. I'm one of those who believes the wealthy should be taxed with the upper most tax brackets paying very high tax rates as we uses to have. Sex ed is another issue as sex is a private act with potential social consequences so I also think kids need a good and proper sex ed so reducs things like unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease, as well as ensuring even kids trapped in a highly insulated world are informed and empowered to speak out against abuse. Amd of course I stand on the correct side of history that is trying to purge Christian creation mythos from science classes, amd doing away with teaching American Exceptionalism and instead teaching facts about America and the world.

 

[idea]

And holding to tradition is the foundation of life and living that keeps us all going in the day-to-day. It's a tried and true method that is used because it works for those who keep to it.

This isn't an either-or. It can be a both-and. One can both value diversity and value tradition.

In any case, what is true for you and I is not necessarily true for all other humans on this planet. This is important to remember. Just because you value novel experiences over keeping to traditions does not make it so (or appropriate) for all others.

"This isn't an either-or. It can be a both-and". - yes to both, yes to "and".

No to "never" . Council with all, listen to all, and keep grandparents family recipes too ❤

 

[Father Heathen]

Do you believe this form of human diversity should be gotten rid of, then? That cultures that want to be isolationist shouldn't exist? Or that control is a bad thing (and when or in what ways)?

Not at all. I'm saying that in some situations (such as cults or totalitarian regimes, for example), prohiting information and interaction is used as a means of control.

I guess I just am okay with these groups existing - I view them as part of human diversity. I don't want to get rid of them. Not everyone thinks globalization and multiculturalism is the best thing since sliced bread. That's okay. I mean, part of the conservative fear reaction is because they believe liberals like me want to get rid of them or their lifeways - force them to be multicultural or just like me. I don't. Maybe you do?

No. I believe people should be able to live as they wish (as long as their actions don't impede upon the rights and freedoms of others), but by their own choice rather than imposed upon them by others. That said, I see culture as something living and fluid, and that its healthy that it be allowed to evolve.
Besides, any culture threatened by access to information and knowledge is probably toxic to begin with.

 

[syo]

At the recent Mormon General con their president told members "Never take counsel from those who do not believe. Seek guidance from prophets, seers and revelators and from the whisperings of the Holy Ghost."

Smart president. I would have advised a christian to step into a lion cage at the zoo. See what happens.

 

[Quintessence]

Besides, any culture threatened by access to information and knowledge is probably toxic to begin with.

I've heard this claimed a lot. Where does this belief come from? And is it actually true?

The thing is, it seems to me the integrity of all cultures is threatened by access to information and knowledge. All of them, without exception, because of how the power of knowledge works. Knowledge bestows power upon the knower - to take actions they could not have taken before. That will fundamentally change the fabric of a culture - threaten its status quo - whenever and wherever new knowledge is introduced. In this, knowledge also steals power from the knower - it controls and guides their behavior by virtue of being known and influencing action. So why do so many tell themselves that cultures threatened by knowledge (which is all of them) are bad? Is it really about the knowledge or is it about passing judgement on cultures that do things differently so that we can control them and in turn protect our own culture from being threatened?

I can't escape seeing the hypocrisy on matters such as this. That's my curse, so for those of you who don't see it, be glad of it.

 

[idea]

I've heard this claimed a lot. Where does this belief come from? And is it actually true?

The thing is, it seems to me the integrity of all cultures is threatened by access to information and knowledge. All of them, without exception, because of how the power of knowledge works. Knowledge bestows power upon the knower - to take actions they could not have taken before. That will fundamentally change the fabric of a culture - threaten its status quo - whenever and wherever new knowledge is introduced. In this, knowledge also steals power from the knower - it controls and guides their behavior by virtue of being known and influencing action. So why do so many tell themselves that cultures threatened by knowledge (which is all of them) are bad? Is it really about the knowledge or is it about passing judgement on cultures that do things differently so that we can control them and in turn protect our own culture from being threatened?

I can't escape seeing the hypocrisy on matters such as this. That's my curse, so for those of you who don't see it, be glad of it.

In engineering ethics, right/wrong all comes down to public health and safety. Is North Korea right?
Yes, knowledge changes cultures, but it is ignorance that steals power.

Storytime about preserving cultures:

Sentinelese - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2018 killing of missionary[edit]​

In November 2018, John Allen Chau, a 26-year-old American[78] trained and sent by the US-based Christian missionary organization All Nations,[79] travelled to North Sentinel Island with the aim of contacting and living among the Sentinelese[79] in the hope of converting them to Christianity.[9][78][80][81] He did not seek the necessary permits required to visit the island.[82][83]

On 15 November, Chau paid local fishermen to take him to a point 500–700 metres (1,600–2,300 feet) from the island's shore,[84] then continued to the island in a canoe. As he approached, he attempted to communicate with the islanders[78] and offer gifts, but retreated after facing hostile responses.[85][86] On another visit, Chau recorded that the islanders reacted to him with a mixture of amusement, bewilderment, and hostility. He attempted to sing worship songs to them, and spoke to them in Xhosa, after which they often fell silent, while other attempts to communicate ended with them bursting into laughter.[86] Chau said the Sentinelese communicated with "lots of high pitched sounds" and gestures.[87] Eventually, according to Chau's last letter, when he tried to hand over fish and gifts, a boy shot a metal-headed arrow that pierced the Bible he was holding in front of his chest, after which he retreated again.[86]

On his final visit, on 17 November, Chau instructed the fishermen to leave without him.[81] The fishermen later saw the islanders dragging Chau's body, and the next day they saw his body on the shore.[84]

Police subsequently arrested seven fishermen for assisting Chau to get close to the island.[85] Local authorities opened a murder case naming "unknown individuals", but there was no suggestion that the Sentinelese would be charged[88] and the U.S. government confirmed that it did not ask the Indian government to press charges against the tribe.[89][90] Indian officials made several attempts to recover Chau's body but eventually abandoned those efforts. An anthropologist involved in the case told The Guardian that the risk of a dangerous clash between investigators and the islanders was too great to justify any further attempts.[91]

 

[Father Heathen]

I've heard this claimed a lot. Where does this belief come from? And is it actually true?

How could the intent to keep others ignorant and isolated, thereby robbing them of agency and autonomy, be seen as anything else? What motive could there be other than to hold power over others?

The thing is, it seems to me the integrity of all cultures is threatened by access to information and knowledge. All of them, without exception, because of how the power of knowledge works. Knowledge bestows power upon the knower - to take actions they could not have taken before. That will fundamentally change the fabric of a culture - threaten its status quo - whenever and wherever new knowledge is introduced.

This is what I meant by cultures changing and evolving with time as new knowledge and understanding is gained. For example, women have more rights and freedoms now than they did in the past. Also, women have more rights and freedom in some cultures than they do in others. Isn't such growth a good thing?

In this, knowledge also steals power from the knower - it controls and guides their behavior by virtue of being known and influencing action. So why do so many tell themselves that cultures threatened by knowledge (which is all of them) are bad? Is it really about the knowledge or is it about passing judgement on cultures that do things differently so that we can control them and in turn protect our own culture from being threatened?

I can't escape seeing the hypocrisy on matters such as this. That's my curse, so for those of you who don't see it, be glad of it.

But it's not hypocrisy. As stated, knowledge strengthens cultures. Sharing it is an empowering gift. Knowledge only threatens deceit and falsehoods, which only hold people down and their cultures back.